Printable View
I used the 18-105 shooting mountain biking in the dark forest. Super usable range. Heavy, but more importantly, not super long so easy to transport. The aperture left me wanting in the forest. Sharpness was good, not amazing. Obviously there is some user error, also darker shooting isn't it's forte to begin with. Similar to the kit lens, but that was hardly a scientific test. All in all, a sweet lens for a recreationalist looking to have sweet photos.Quote:
Originally Posted by zion zig zag
Not necessarily user-error. DXOmark gives it a not so great sharpness rating. I don't know much about this stuff, though. Just getting my feet wet.Quote:
Originally Posted by adrenalated
Why oh why couldn't that be for full frame! Oh for a Sony 24-104Quote:
Originally Posted by zion zig zag
A6000 isn't full frame. I have the 16-70mm, it's a great lens. Great color rendition also.Quote:
Originally Posted by GoldenBC
I wouldn't shoot full frame lens on a cropped sensor for a ski/travel set up. I like the small size of the 16-70mm for the quality and range it provides. Seems like a full frame lens kind of defeats the purpose of the A6000. Unless al
With that note we also have the 55-210, sigma 150-600 with Canon mount and adapter, 50 1.8mm and 35 1.8. All are really small and I can bring multiple lenses in most situations with the exception of the 150-600, that thing is a beast.
I initially had the same intention but decided we love the small size, it goes everywhere with us. if I get a full frame Sony it will be an addition and will build out appropriately or sell some of the crop lenses.
Sent from my Pixel 2 XL using TGR Forums mobile app
One other thing to note.... supposedly Sony is going to announce an A6500 successor (or maybe a new line like the A7000) in the next couple of weeks. Kind of like a Canon 7DII competitor but mirrorless. Something like that, combined with Sony's APS-C lens lineup could be quite appealing.
Since I just got an A6500 for christmas, that's right on schedule, lol.Quote:
Originally Posted by smmokan
Score dude, great gift!
Since everyone here is talking about sony aps-c...
I have an aging NEX-5R... functional, lots of snaps. I'd like to get a new lens for it this winter. I've cheaped through with the kit lenses so far but want to get some better images, especially on a rare-for-me overseas trip approaching.
What should I get? I'm attracted to the idea of a compact prime lens for the travel sleekness, but worry about not having as much fun with it. Also attracted to the 16-70 Zeiss or similar for versatility with good quality... I thought I was afraid of the bulk but I guess it's not much bigger than the kit lens.
Or should I just buy a newer camera? The NEX is pretty basic next to the big Alpha ones... but with good glass can prolly still make some nice images.
Advice? This is the only decent camera I have and shares many duties.
The successor is rumored to be a lot bigger. The a6500 will still be produced I'm guessing and is a sweet little camera. Great gift.Quote:
Originally Posted by auvgeek
Sent from my Pixel 2 XL using TGR Forums mobile app
I'd keep the camera and add new lenses. A camera is only as good as its lens and Sony seems committed to keeping their cropped sense line. I think the camera you have has the same sensor as the A6000 series, which creates the image quality but I might be wrong. You can get a new camera next or later.Quote:
Originally Posted by Norseman
I'm no pro by any means but I have a few primes and the 16-70mm zeiss along with a few zooms for our A6000.
I really like the 35mm 1.8 for a prime. It's pretty affordable and does great for indoor shots like museums if your traveling. Decent for landscapes but not as wide as you might like. or photos of people indoors. It's basically the focal length of what your eye sees so it's a good one lense setup for travel or just carrying around. No zoom obviously so you may or may not have an adjustment for this. But great bright photos.
We use the 16-70mm the most. It isn't the best for indoors with f/4, but it's f/4 though the whole range. Gets wide enough for most circumstances and a decent amount of zoom to 70mm but won't get you super close. We like a small setup that I can throw in my backpack or whatever. If I could only have one lens with me I would keep this one. One Downside is the filter size is different than any other lens I have so if you use filters at all you will have to get an adapter or new filters. The 16-70mm is also pricey. It isn't bulky by a long shot, almost pocketable in a larger coat
Happy to answer any question specifically the best I can. Again I'm only an amateur but a gear junky for everything I'm into, including skiing and photo gear. Though photo gear has fallen behind a little due to a new baby and lack of funds to spend on lenses and such.
Sent from my Pixel 2 XL using TGR Forums mobile app
To add to the previous talk of a telephoto, I have a 70-300mm lens for my d5300 and I love it. It has the af-p focus which I find to be super fast to focus and is perfect for action shots.
The smaller 70mm focal length is great for portraits. At 300 mm it tends to get a bit less sharp but you rarely need that much zoom. Great for both action and portraits. This tends to be my primary lens over my kit 18-55. Only thing it sucks for is wide angle/landscape obviously.
Do note that others have found this lens better and sharper than the 200 mm zoom lens that was also previously mentioned
35mm prime would be a great, inexpensive travel lens. On a crop body a 24mm would do ok too. 50mm prime is pretty standard and much better for things like portraits on a crop sensor. A compact wide zoom would be ok too, but the IQ you get from primes is so much better for the money, and you’ll get faster apertures which comes in handy when shooting indoors.Quote:
Originally Posted by Norseman
Good glass will beat a good body any day.
Oh, I'm super stoked on it!Quote:
Originally Posted by Norseman
Others can give you much better advice than me, but it seems like the big question is: what do you want to get better images of?
It seems like you primarily shoot landscapes, so maybe you'd be happy with a wider prime? I've been eyeing the Sigma 16mm f/1.4 DC DN as a sharp but reasonably priced option. Not super compact, though. I should stick with the 18-135 that came with it for a while before buying more gear.
Auvgeek. I got a waterproof radio harness. A7ii (and therefore A6500) with reasonable sized lens fits in there
I may have to try to talk you into letting me shoot with the 18-135 sometime... that's another lens I'm interested to try.Quote:
Originally Posted by auvgeek
On the topic of wide angle primes, if you ever want to try my Samyang 12mm F2, you're welcome anytime.
Good info! Sorry, I edited my post pretty substantially and decided to start a new thread so as to not distract this one from the lens discussion. Will post it soon.Quote:
Originally Posted by LeeLau
Yeah, you're welcome to try the 18-135. Not sure if it has enough reach for action shots from safe zones, but we'll see. Short hut trip to the Opus Hut late next week so I'll have a better handle on it after that.Quote:
Originally Posted by adrenalated
I'd def be interested in that 12 mm F2. The Sigma 16 mm f/1.4 (which I keep coming back to as a great option for landscapes) is supposedly super sharp, but it's seems a little bulky for a prime -- approximately the same length as the 18-135. Prolly obvious to most of you guys, but I'm just learning that fast lenses need lotsa glass.
For others reading this thread and thinking about getting into ski photography beyond your iPhone: if I was buying starting from scratch right now, I would take a very hard look at the RX100 VI. It is pricey for the image quality compared to an A6X00, but 200mm zoom (35 mm equivalent) + 24 fps + 233 buffer limit + pop-up EVF ... and will fit in your pocket. Blows the older RX100s out of the water where it counts for skiing (at least IMHO): zoom and buffer limit. Frankly, I'll very likely be upgrading my RX100 I to the VI at some point when I have the monies. You just can't beat the pocketable size, and I'm a firm believer that the best camera is the one you use regularly.
After extensive intellectual dentristy for my Sony A7ii fullframe I will likely go for the 24-240 f3.5- 6.5 or 24-104 f4.
Price for former is 900 used 1200 new. Price for latter is 1300. Even used is up there so may buy new and get warranty.
Tempted to get former because of price, acceptable weather sealing and amazing Sony miracle sensor lets me shoot high ISO decent quality even at f6.5. All I need to know now is which has useful Autofocus for ski and bike which I'll figure out by demoing lenses
Ive used the 28-70 kit lens for a while but while inexpensive it's lacking at both ends, is soft and AF is lacking. But it resells at 200 or so which isnt terrible.
Also been using my Canon glass with adapter on the A7ii but it's subpar AF. Can resell the Canon glass while it still has value. So maybe get another 300 or so.
Basically I want an excuse to go with native Sony lenses
Still use the RX100 for pocketability plus I bet that it produces better images than my old Canon RebelXT
Lee that 24-105 is def worth the extra $$ IMO. I rented an A7iii and that lens to test a couple weeks ago and it was super sharp and fairly small.
Found the AF to be fast as well. I love the Eye AF but that’s less useful for action than for portraits.
Edit: here is a sample shot with that combo. I always find shooting dogs to be a good proxy for action since they never stop moving or follow directions. lol.
Attachment 263007
Aye Supermoon. That's what I've been told. In the end the extra cost isn't that much spread out over the lifetime of a good lens
What I'm interested in is the performance in heavy snowfall with fast moving objects coming in at you hot. That extra reach of the 240 looks good on paper
I really like the Samyang. MF only, but it's fast, sharp, and pretty easy to use. However, it's also not the most compact lens in the world.Quote:
Originally Posted by auvgeek
I could see running a two lens combo of the 18-135 and 55-210 for skiing. Pick which one is on the camera based on what terrain you're skiing. In trees throw the 18-135 on, more open use the 55-210.
I like the 55-210 pretty well. It's pretty sharp, fast enough, and pretty light. I think I get better shots with it than either the 16-50 kit lens or the 18-200 that I rented.
You ever use that samyang for astrophotography? I've been thinking about picking one up for that purpose and maybe landscape shots. I've been curious how easy it is to use.Quote:
Originally Posted by adrenalated
If a two lens combo I still think the 16-70 zeiss and 55-210 is better and plent small and light.
Sent from my Pixel 2 XL using TGR Forums mobile app
Sounds like people are stoked on the 55-210. Any thoughts on the 55-210 vs the 70-300?
Unless I'm missing something, the 55-210 seems stupid cheap now.
Note: I suck at astrophotographyQuote:
Originally Posted by Cdubmpdx
https://photos.smugmug.com/TRIP-REPO...NbNHh3H-XL.jpg
https://photos.smugmug.com/TRIP-REPO...XNqqMtQ-XL.jpg
https://photos.smugmug.com/TRIP-REPO...WBVwQvL-XL.jpg
https://photos.smugmug.com/TRIP-REPO...xnVJLFB-XL.jpg
https://photos.smugmug.com/TRIP-REPO...4W54CZz-XL.jpg
I was SUPER intimidated by the whole manual focus thing, but turns out, it's really not a big deal for landscapes and night. You're basically going to always focus at infinity. Figure out where on the focus ring is sharp at infinity and you're golden. My lens is pretty much right on the markings, but some reviewers have reported that the marks on their lens are slightly off from the sharpest point.
Those are great shots! Yeah I figure I shoot in full Manual for astro and a lot of landscape anyway so it can't be too much of an adjustment. I've heard the same about the markings, most people just mark infinity with a sharp. I think these snow night shots might have sold me on shelling out some funds for a new camera toy.Quote:
Originally Posted by adrenalated
Thanks for the photos!
Sent from my Pixel 2 XL using TGR Forums mobile app
were those astro shots done via tripod or hand held?
Definitely need a tri pod for those. Provably 20 to 30 second exposures, the trailers are probably hoursQuote:
Originally Posted by auvgeek
Sent from my Pixel 2 XL using TGR Forums mobile app